This may be the easiest or the hardest fallacy to overcome, because the argument is incorrectly made. Of course we can continue to fund Ukraine. The question is do we want to. The fact that we cannot in total spending continue to spend $2T deficits forever does not mean we can’t spend some smaller amount forever–we did after all take in almost $5T last year in revenue. Those that are making this argument are effectively blaming our broader budgetary problems on this one item in the budget line, which is a drop in the bucket to other more egregious funding lines, and they are picking on this spending line because they don’t like funding Ukraine (e.g., J.D. Vance*). This problem is not helped by Donald Trump saying we’ve spent $350B on Ukraine, when the true amount appropriated is $175B (and not all of that has been obligated, e.g., the military aid he just “paused”)**. Of that $175B, the majority of this is in weapons, with the majority of that being sent to U.S. military contractors to replenish our stocks with new weapons while we send the Ukrainians older weapons out of storage that ultimately we would have had to pay to destroy at some point). This chart from the CFR may be helpful, and also you can dig deeper here to see why Mr. Zelensky says he’s only received $75B***):

This spending is over three years, so we’ve given ~$60B/yr, with much of that revitalizing the U.S military industrial base. Now I’m not saying that this is not a lot of money–it most certainly is–but the amount actually sent to Ukraine is small in comparison to our overall military budget (~3%) and certainly with respect to our overall budget (~.3%). The question is always one of priorities–if we want to spend on something, we do.

Further, the war in Ukraine has actually helped us in this regard. We always knew that if the balloon went up in Taiwan, we would only have a week or two of munitions to fight with (based on wargames), but we had come to believe that with the speed of modern warfare it would be over by then. The war in Ukraine has shown us that this quick war belief is questionable, and that we needed to significantly increase our military industrial base capacity to fight even one conflict. So to those saying we need to focus on China and not Ukraine, most of the Ukraine funding is indeed focusing on China as we now know we need to be prepared to have a lot more military industrial production capacity.

So given 1) it is expensive, and 2) we can afford it, and 3) we need a lot of this spending for our own right, but 4) Europe should do more, what might be an alternative? Let me put a proposal in terms that Mr. Trump might resonate with. Mr. Trump could lay down these principles (all consistent with his prior views): The U.S. will no longer pay for any Ukrainian financial aid–that is the EU’s responsibility. We will consider making loans backed by good collateral. The U.S. will accelerate our military industrial complex revitalization, and continue to provide Ukraine older weapons, and when our stocks are replenished we will also provide lend/lease support to Ukraine of military hardware. And until Europe hits the 3% of GDP spending target, they will buy U.S. military hardware (no expansion beyond their current military production–the ramp up will come in the U.S.). This will help with two of Mr. Trump’s big issues–we need to manufacture more in the U.S., and he wants Europe to buy more of our goods.

Further, this would help in his negotiations with Mr. Putin–we’re getting ready to really ramp up our production and provide significant military capability to Ukraine–you ain’t seen nothin yet–so get to the deal table while the getting’s good.

As always, we face tradeoffs. If you say I don’t value military spending at all, or I don’t believe that there is any connection between Ukraine and the U.S. national interest, my argument above is not for you. If you say we can’t afford it, however, the argument above may help you rethink it.

* Who said during his Senate campaign “I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”

** I have tried to find out what basis he might be using to say this to no avail–if any reader has a logic other than his typical hyperbole, chime in below in the comments. It’s also not helpful to the cause of truth for Donald Trump to say we’re paying $200B more than the Europeans, when they collectively are spending almost as much as us, and many EU countries are paying a much higher amount as percent of their GDP. But hey, it fits the narrative, so what do the facts have to do with that?

*** And this shows the nonsense of the online right, who when Mr. Zelensky says he doesn’t know what happened to the other $100B (money that never was intended to go to Ukraine), we had numerous people posting how the corrupt oligarchs had siphoned off $100B. Yeah, those corrupt oligarchs like Raytheon who are selling us modern munitions to replace the older stock we give Ukraine. Can the right be at least somewhat better than the looney left?